Skip to main content

About your Search

20121115
20121115
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
states, particularly the obama administration, decide, are we going to be assisted with our own personal security issue here in the united states by the actions we take or are the re-- reactions that are going to be caused by our actions actually going to cause greater threats to our closest allies and to ourselves? unfortunately, that's what we're seeing. in fact, i had seen an article in may of 2010 that indicated that this administration, the obama administration, sided with israel's enemies in demanding that israel disclose any nuclear weapons. we had never sided with israel's enemies in trying to push israel into doing something against its own interests. when you're a very small country surrounded by countries that want to see you go away, it is important that they not know all of your defenses. going back in the old testament, you find history, king his kaija -- king hezekiah showing all the defenses they had in their armory he showed them to the leaders from babylon. as a result, ultimately that kingdom was lost to the babylonians. you don't show other nations, even people you th
major question, a lot of the answers of your not kidding, what was the assessment of the obama administration of the area where there consular was? there's a big difference. if this was an area as secure as iceland or waziristan. time confident that there were cables that said there are ten training centers for militias around that location. so i would like to know if the administration basically perceived the location is dangerous there for what were the measures and therefore when the attack occurred, the kind of response would be appropriate to the type of assessment. that is what we want to know. >> chairman of the house securities committee is very direct saying the documents that we see that the cia had prior to general petraeus coming in, it is impossible to believe he thought he was giving as at the time on his testimony, testimony supporting what became the brought fiction of an inch and a video. congressman king is saying point blank. he believes that petraeus was under the thumb of the administration, coerced and blackmail and a statement. >> i think i no general pet
and believes that the 39.6 number is still on the table and that the can democrats and the obama administration still have the mandate. >> you're talking higher marginal rate ps p. >> yes. he doesn't believe there are not enough deductions. so many of the ceos that came out of that meeting seemed to be wink winwink, nod nod, says may he's not just talking 35%. deductions plus. >> i thought for sure raising the rate is on the table. that there will be no deal without raising the rate on the wealthy. >> the idea is raising the amount of taxes that wealthy pay and you can get there two different ways. one is by raising the marginal rate, one is raising the effective rate. >> but i don't. >> i've heard that as a way of stopping raising the rate. i don't think there's any discussion -- there will be no deal without eliminating the burke tax cuts on the wealthy. >> i think people are coming around to that view. >> but this is the republican view. >> but i'm saying -- >> if you listened to the president carefully last friday -- >> i'm not ed advocating either friday. >> the president last friday -- th
of the differences between the bush administration and the obama administration is that we believed, and a big many of us continue to believe, that this is a long war not against al qaeda. al qaeda is one manifestation but against a particular ideology. so our national security goals were, one, keep america safe, too, help promote freedom around the world. and those two things are linked because we believe they were linked. free countries are less likely to make were on their neighbors. so i think that to me the grand strategic goal of public diplomacy is the same as the grand strategic goal of foreign policy and national security policy, which is to achieve those two goals. and i think you never ever want to forget that those are the goals that need to be achieved. and public diplomacy's role in that i think does, in fact, revolve around the ideological part. and it is, not to quote myself, i hate to do that, but i can't say it any better. [laughter] >> a great man once said. >> the aim must be to ensure that negative sentiments and day-to-day grievances toward the united states and its allies did
years as it relates to the obama administration is not positive for stocks. they don't want to say it. they don't want to write it. but you can find it everywhere. the evidence is mounting all over the street that the last two weeks there is a massive outside allocation shift as a result of it. this is what i want to say. i find it very disturbing when people walk into this building, come on air, talk about the portfolios. if you're a loan only manager you have to try to find stocks that are working but, remember, there's nothing wrong with holding cash or saying it like you think it is. i want to point something out here. this is the wellington letter. he writes he's been doing this for 35 years. this is what he said in the edition that came out yesterday. bat ten down the hatches. protect your assets, your business, your job. this is no longer a theoretical exercise. i want to tell you, carl, i find it disgusting that a lot of people are saying that to their clients and they're saying that across the board but they're not putting it in print. if you're saying something like that, ha
attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi, libya. republicans, they stepped up their criticism of the obama administration after the president's strong defense yesterday of u.n. ambassador suzanne rice. rice originally said the attack resulted from protests over an anti-islamic video. while some democrats defended rice today, one congressman called the president a liar. >> what is clear is that this administration, including the president himself, has intentionally misinformed, lied to the american people in the aftermath of this tragedy. >> information that rice received, she cede from the administration, and that information is what she knew at that time. whether or not she knew other information and whether or not she told the truth, that is not an issue here. >> the fact is without iffing gu intoou all the details, documents received so that in 24 hours of the attack people m intelligence community believe that this was a terrorist attack, there was a planned attack, and so when they knew that the day after, which would have been september 12th, why on september 14th was general petraeu
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)